dog daze

Last fall, Editor and Publisher summarized the results of a recent Gallup poll on evolution.

“Public acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is well below the 50% mark, a fact of considerable concern to many scientists,” Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of The Gallup Poll, observed today. He noted that given three alternatives, only 35% say that evolution is well-supported by evidence. The same number say evolution is one of many theories and not well supported by evidence. Another 29% say they don't know enough about it to say.

Almost half of Americans (45%) believe that human beings “were created by God essentially as they are today (that is, without evolving) about 10,000 years ago,” acccording to Gallup's poll.

Newport, in his weekly report, cited two possible reasons for these findings: Most Americans have not been regularly exposed to scientific study on these matters; or many Americans know about Darwin's theory, but feel it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. “Indeed, about a third of Americans are biblical literalists,” he writes.

The E&P article neglects to mention what is arguably the most interesting poll statistic: that a scant 13 percent of those surveyed accepted the proposition that “Man developed [i.e., evolved], but God had no part in [the] process.”

This 2004 survey was not a one-time event; Gallup has, apparently, been conducting similar polls on something like an annual basis. And as Chris Mooney noted back in 2003, the results have been for him depressingly consistent. Mooney's solution is that “we need much better science education in this country.” Certainly no one should object to improved scientific literacy—but I very much doubt that a doubling or trebling of our efforts on that front would make much difference, or at least not the sort of difference that Mooney seeks.

The primary reason is a kind of American exceptionalism: the kind, that is, that can be semi-rigorously quantified (for those progressive and transnationalist naysayers up in the peanut gallery). Consider the work of the University of Michigan's World Values Survey, especially as summarized here by The Economist (see this chart in particular).

America's position is odd. On the quality-of-life axis, it is like Europe: a little more “self-expressive” than Catholic countries, such as France and Italy, a little less so than Protestant ones such as Holland or Sweden. This is more than a matter of individual preference. The “quality of life” axis is the one most closely associated with political and economic freedoms.

But now look at America's position on the traditional-secular axis. It is far more traditional than any west European country except Ireland. It is more traditional than any place at all in central or Eastern Europe. America is near the bottom-right corner of the chart, a strange mix of tradition and self-expression. […]

Since the first world values survey in 1981, every western country has shifted markedly along the spectrum towards greater self-expression. America is no exception. But on the other spectrum America seems to have become more traditional, rather than less.

If for “traditional” one reads “religious”, the point becomes clear. Americans, taken as a whole, are a stubbornly religious people—much to the lasting astonishment of Europeans and the chagrin of blue-state secularists. Note well that this says nothing as to whether the science of biological evolution is compatible with religious belief. But when such science is perceived to be in conflict with received doctrine, the science will very often lose, at least in the cultural arena.

For the academic Left, this is proof positive of middle America's incorrigible ignorance. But if a proper scientific education were the panacea it is often claimed to be, presumably we would not see prominent biologists making utterly daft claims about the nature of science, or (worse) subordinating science to their own favored cultural values. And yet we do.

Consider first Douglas Futuyma: expert on speciation, former Guggenheim and Fulbright fellow, past president of the American Society of Naturalists, &tc. He is also author of a widely-adopted college textbook on evolutionary biology—one that, on the first page of the first chapter of the first two editions, states that Marx’s theory of history is a “crucial plank” underlying not just much of modern Western thought, but also of science itself: a claim so laden with fluorescent idiocy that it is almost quaint.

Futuyma elsewhere takes on scientific creationism—a laudable enterprise, but one in which he displays utter ignorance about fields of study apart from his own. I have written before of his misunderstanding of sophomore-level physics. My intent was to follow up with a discussion of his cartoonish view of history, but thus far have not gotten round to it. For now, it will suffice to note that Futuyma's single named reference in support of his claim that Christianity has for centuries oppressed scientific progress is an infamous polemic published in—well, 1896.

Then there's Harvard professor Richard Lewontin, last seen arguing that scientists have a unique claim to political rationality. For Lewontin, grandiose political assertions are hardly unusual; consider this illustrative example, written in the heat of the 1970s debate over sociobiology.

There is nothing in Marx, Lenin, or Mao that is or can be in contradiction with a particular set of phenomena in the objective world.

One way of interpreting this claim is as an early version of Stephen Jay Gould's “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”: the notion that science and politics (or religion, in Gould's formulation) occupy separate, mostly nonintersecting, domains. But given Lewontin's unabashedly political activitism in the name of his science—particularly as head of the Sociobiology Study Group—it seems that he was in actuality positing something much stronger: namely, that Marxism is the standard by which science ought be judged.

My present intent is not to reject actual scientific criticisms of sociobiology; the final chapter of E.O. Wilson's 1975 book does, after all, contain more than a little overreach. But the very political attacks against Wilson by Lewontin et al. are relevant here, as they came cloaked in the authority of science. As Paul Gross notes:

The “scientific” objections take this form: sociobiology cannot be good science because data-gathering or theorizing insensitive to the harm it might do victim-groups is ipso facto bad science. This impresses the young, the aged New Left, and other philosophical naïfs. But it is tautologic nonsense. There is no connection between quality of inquiry and decorousness of result. More: a possible role for biology in human behavior implies that political action alone might not change everything for the better. For the political engagé, that is absolute heresy.

Thirty years on, the subjugation of research to ideology continues apace, as demonstrated by the hysteria generated just months ago by Harvard President Larry Summer's intentionally provocative, but (when placed in context) not particularly remarkable, comments on women and science.

So: Which is more damaging to the scientific enterprise—the anti-evolution beliefs of the general public (which, through the miracle of federal funding, have precious little impact on how research is actually conducted), or a prevailing groupthink within the academy that has for decades rendered study of human biodiversity and gender differences suspect, if not outright taboo? (See also: “The Conflict Within - The Left’s Version of Creationism” at GNXP.)

Of course, it is only the Right's purported sins against scientific objectivity that are considered newsworthy. Which brings me, in roundabout fashion, to President Bush's infamous comments of last week.

Q I wanted to ask you about the — what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think — as I said, harking back to my days as my governor — both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

Q Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people — so people can understand what the debate is about.

Q So the answer accepts the validity of intelligent design as an alternative to evolution?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting — you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.

Q So we've got to give these groups —

THE PRESIDENT: Very interesting question, Hutch. (Laughter.)

From the subsequent blogstorm, one might have concluded that the President had just announced a taste for live kittens. But Mr. Bush's remarks were, on the contrary, neither extraordinary nor newsworthy. That claim puts me very much in the minority, and I will begin defending it with the less-than-obvious ploy of discussing semantics.

It will help to distinguish between small-d design and capital-D Design. To wit: Intelligent Design (ID) proponents on the cultural front are forging a big-tent movement, with “design” (small d) taking on an imprecise meaning that is roughly synonymous with “purpose”. Note well that nearly anyone who believes that God has a purpose in creation will likely find design in this looser sense attractive: young-earth creationists, capital-D Design advocates, some deists, theistic evolutionists, and many who just haven't thought much on the subject at all. Hence it is not surprising that design in this generic sense polls highly: chalk it up to good marketing by ID types, to be sure, but also to the inability of the zeitgeist to maintain conceptual categories much more elaborate than either/or dichotomies.

Capital-D Design, on the other hand, is the actual theory promoted by Intelligent Design types, and is based upon the postulate that the signature of the Designer can be detected in the history of life. (Here I'm taking theory in a rather loose sense.) The kicker is that most people—presumably including the President—would be hard-pressed to articulate the difference between the small-d and capital-D views. As such, support for the notion of “teaching both sides” is not necessarily support for the capital-D Design program.

Even so, calls for “teaching both sides” (or “teaching the controversy”, in ID-speak) typically presuppose that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is a “theory in trouble”. Which it clearly is not. Yet as the polls cited above demonstrate, in the public mind evolution is inextricably linked to issues of religious faith: opponents of ID, who justifiably maintain that science classes are for science, nonetheless do students no favors by ignoring this cultural environment. If the goal of science education is to give students an understanding of science, in some instances discussion of that milieu—including the nature of various objections to evolution—might well be appropriate.

In other words: along with the biology, teach some elementary philosophy of science. (Of course, I would say that.) So was Mr. Bush making a similar point, or was his formulation—Both sides ought to be properly taught—instead a mere echo of the Intelligent Design rallying cry? A careful reading of the transcript does not reveal an unambiguous endorsement of the ID project: on the contrary, his answers were rather cagey, perhaps even uncharacteristically artful.

My anti-ID creds are by now well-established, and I can with some justification claim to know more about this subject than a majority of the participants in last week's blogosphere tantrum. Yet I remain bemused by the reaction to Mr. Bush's remarks.

Seriously: What was the fuss about?

Very, very nice. Although I do have to admit to being one of those dismayed by Bush remarks which, at first blush, I took as giving ID equal footing with evolutionary theory on scientific grounds. Closer reading revelas that he clearly did not do this - but his answer was almost too nuanced.

Thanks for the analysis.

Do you honestly think Bush's answer was nuanced? Although my political point of view is strongly opposed to the current administration, I think any reasonable person would have to acknowledge that a characteristic of the current administration is a willingness to move forward on policies even when there is opposition. I can think of few positions that the Bush administration has articulated to the press - whether good or bad from any specific persons point of view - that can accurately be described as nuanced. In some cases it is clear that answers given to the press are intended to obfuscate instead of enlighten, but even then answers are not nuances.

The simpler interpretation is that Bush - who is after all an evangelical Christian - views ID as a genuine alternative to evolution. The notion that Bush was being uncharacteristically artful seems absurd to me, and I would contend that it should be viewed as absurd to anybody - supporter or detracter - who has followed this administration. And the notion that Bush would desire more teaching of the philosophy of science or a detailed discussion of the sociological aspects of the ID movement or the epistemological basis of historical sciences is doubly absurd. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and a GW Bush is just a GW Bush...

Although the point that there is a lack of knowledge outside of their immediate fields for some scientists like Futuyma and Lewinton (though I would argue that Lewinton's belief in Marxism is not unexamined, even if it is incorrect in the sense that all of the evidence in the form of states that have adopted Marxist policies suggests that Marxism doesn't work). The notion that dialectical materialism is in any way the basis for science is also absurd when one considers the impact of unquestioned acceptence of "diamat" on genetics in the Soviet Union. But there are also liberal scientists and philosophers that embrace strongly materialistic views and reject the Marxist narrative regarding history (e.g., Popper ... I would also be tempted to place Sokal in this category).

Are there some on the left who incorporate silly and poorly thought out beliefs into their science? Of course. But the reality is that there is a wide-ranging attack on many aspects of science by a subset of the Republicans, and that is frightening. Placed in this context, there is a good reason for the fuss!

Just a quick response for now. I will follow up with another post on the politicization of science soon.

1) Do I think the president was advocating teaching philosophy of science? Not in as many words, no, as most people have never heard of my discipline, and many of those who have still think that philosophy is something that scientists turn to when they are too old to do anything productive.

Still: by "properly taught" he could have meant "discuss the proper boundaries of science"--which, in elementary philosophy of science terms, translates to "discuss the difference between methodological and ontological naturalism", or something similar.

I would not expect that Mr. Bush would come up with such a formulation on his own; most people simply don't understand science, and he is likely no exception. But apparently the White House science advisor understands what is wrong with ID, and if he's doing his job, he has briefed the boss.

2) Was the president being "uncharacteristically artful"? Perhaps; but then again, maybe he just got lucky. What is clear from the transcript is that he was quite guarded in his remarks. So even if Mr. Bush is personally skeptical of evolution (which is likely the case)--well, my guess is, again, that the science advisor is doing his job.

3) One of the reasons that I dismiss the fuss is that the stakes--insofar as public education is concerned--seem to me remarkably low. Almost all graduates of our school system are functionally illiterate when it comes to science. Although I do not support the teaching of ID in public schools, if here and there such ideas managed to slip into the science curriculum, no great harm done--it's not as if the well can be that much more poisoned anyway.

I've taught future public school teachers; worked in the technology office of a local high school; and most recently attempted to teach astronomy to pre-college students. In short, I've seen how the sausage is made, and it ain't pretty.

4) Do Republicans politicize science? Of course. What really irks me, though, is how progressives assume that they are on the side of the angels, when so very often they smuggle preconceptions into their practice of science, on the level of postulates. And since most people--scientists included--never bother to examine the axioms at the base of their belief systems, and since academic science (at least) is overwhelmingly populated by liberals, if not leftists, a shared set of political assumptions becomes part of the background "knowledge" to the detriment of science itself. That is why, for instance, statements such as "race is a purely social construction" are so often taken as authoritative science (when they serve more as foundational axioms), and why Futuyma can claim that Marxism is part of the underlying structure of science, apparently without being taken to task by the colleagues who adopt his textbook.

As an addendum, those on my side of the ideological divide need to do a better job of calling bullshit when our fellow travellers misuse science. (Which is, incidentally, one of the motivations behind my dissertation.)

But for those on the left: admitting that one has a problem is the first step towards recovery...